In the past decade, news of millions of people fleeing their homes to “safe countries and a secure future” featured as daily headlines on global media. That included the reports on Syrians who were driven out of their homes by the civil war that began in 2011, the people of Central African Republic who faced spells of sectarian violence since late 2012, the South Sudanese who fled the conflict from 2013, millions of Rohingya who have fled ongoing violence in Myanmar since 2017, and people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritreans, Somalians, and Sudanese fleeing protracted violence or effects of climate change. The COVID-19-related travel restrictions briefly reduced the refugee numbers during 2020-2021. However, the beginning of 2022 witnessed the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered the second largest global refugee crisis in no time. Based on the UN Refugee Agency, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) data, the global refugee population in the last decade has increased at an alarming rate.
At the same time, the past decade also showed that there are severe fault lines and biases in the global asylum governance systems. The latest was the British plan to deport people arriving on British territory to seek protection and humanitarian assistance to Rwanda as part of the so-called “expedited and fair” relocation agreement signed between both countries. The lead of the United Kingdom was followed by Denmark signing a similar deal with Rwanda, a country experiencing internal issues and having an already overstretched asylum infrastructure. The responsibility transfer of asylum-processing and refugee protection is not only a critical shift from the conventional principle of territorial asylum but assessing its impact on the vulnerable population fleeing conflict and persecution is also fundamental in understanding the lapses in the current global refugee regime.
Ironically, most host countries of the global refugee population are signatories of the 1951 Refugee Convention but continue to maintain increasingly insensitive and restrictive domestic asylum systems. Often bypassing the principles enshrined in the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the host countries, especially North America and Europe, compromised their legal and moral responsibilities toward the protection needs of asylum seekers and refugees. Adjudging that people arrived at their borders as “false claimants of asylum abusing their generosity”, these countries have resorted to many harsh and inhuman policies that have endangered their safety and rights. That varies from seizing the assets of asylum seekers, such as cash, jewellery, watches, mobile phones, computers, and other valuables, delaying family reunification by extending the waiting period for sponsorship applications, restricting access to permanent residence permits, and pressurising rejected asylum seekers to “voluntarily” return to home, as against the principle of non-refoulement. Such hard-line policies are violations of human rights principles enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, the mandates of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and many more treaties and conventions signed.
The failed responses during Arab Spring, Syrian, Rohingya, Afghan, or Belarus crises attest to the criticality of the political will of the host countries in formulating and implementing fair and humane migration and asylum policies. At the same time, what needs to be deconstructed is the narrative that most asylum seekers migrate to Europe and North America. In contrast, the data shows that many of them move to their neighbouring countries. The majority of the forced migrant population are, hence, in the low- and middle-income countries. Countries like India, which hosts a substantial refugee population from the neighbouring countries – Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh – have not yet signed the 1951 Convention or enacted a comprehensive national refugee policy.
Moreover, the administrative oversight in global refugee governance was rarely addressed. The faulty procedures associated with refugee management that can deny asylum seekers a fair hearing in the country of the asylum application or their right to appeal the asylum decision are grave violations of the fundamental human right to asylum. Instead, the governments tend to blame the “flooding” of “illegal migrants” in the guise of asylum seekers, facilitated by migrant smugglers and traffickers, for overburdening and paralysing the enforcement systems. What often goes unaddressed is the undeniable fact that those seeking asylum are forced to engage in illicit border crossings with the aid of smugglers and traffickers because of the limited or lack of safe and legal migration pathways. The repeatedly hardened immigration rules and border controls to “crack down illegal immigration networks” have made it harder to seek asylum in the West, Europe or elsewhere. Moreover, following the 2014/15 Syrian refugee crisis, many host countries adopted voluntary repatriation or overseas resettlement of asylum seekers as viable policies to deal with asylum seekers and the refugee population.
Besides, instances of racial/ethnic discrimination and xenophobia are rampant and the reluctance to host non-white and non-Christian asylum seekers is pervasive among “Global North” countries. This was manifested again in their quick and differential response to Ukrainian asylum seekers.For instance, the EU has taken an unprecedented step to activate immediate temporary protection for displaced Ukrainians. Though praised as the EU rising to the occasion, there were reports that non-Ukrainians, including Africans, Afghans, and Yemenis, were deprioritised and racially discriminated against at the entry points to the EU states and poorly treated while seeking assistance post-entry. The hard-line anti-immigration sentiments and racial othering are motivated by prevailing electoral politics, the upsurge of populist and far-right parties, and anti-immigrant public opinion across the globe. The public antipathy is rooted in the discontent about the taxpayer-funded support to asylum seekers and refugees who were regarded as burdensome and a threat to the security and cultural identity of the host countries. Besides, the asylum and refugee numbers are often manipulated and politically motivated as asylum is a political hot potato in almost all host countries. Over the past two decades, anti-immigrant parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the National Rally Party in France, or the American Party have surged in popularity as well as critical backing by the media.
The focus theme of this year’s Refugee Day is that “every person has the ‘right to seek safety’ – whoever they are, wherever they come from, and whenever they are forced to flee”. However, what we are witnessing is asylum seekers being denied access to critical aid and integration globally. Refugees are stuck in prolonged limbo without access to education, work, and other welfare services or are push backed by law enforcers, and they were even used as tools to settle political scores. This, along with separation from families and their communities, the indefinite wait at the asylum centres, and the ever-impending thoughts of uncertainty and insecurity, adversely affect their mental and physical health and well-being.
It is high time we, as a global community, address these fundamental lapses in the asylum governance systems and show sensitivity to the issues faced by the vulnerable refugee communities. Instead of fortifying borders, we need to establish inclusive asylum systems and extend our humanitarian commitments to asylum seekers and refugees without discrimination. We must question the overarching and misguided narrative that asylum seekers are “illegal immigrants” and treat them with compassion and dignity. On this World Refugee Day, let us reframe the conversations on asylum to be more inclusive and refugee-centric.
Dr Divya Balan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at FLAME University, Pune, India. She teaches courses on Migration and Diaspora, and Forced Migration, Refugees and Human Security in FLAME. Dr Divya has authored several timely opinion pieces for national and regional newspapers and magazines, including for the New Indian Express, the Wire, Times of India, Telangana Today and Truecopy Think on issues related to international, internal and forced migration, migration governance, Indian diaspora, migrant transnationalism and identity, and global Malayalees. She is also the author of monographs, articles in research journals, and chapters in edited books on themes related to migration and refugees.